The previous post was: What if the universe is made of space”
Summary of where we are:
Foundational Hypothesis
Space is not empty; space itself is gravity.
Gravity is not caused by mass but is a property of space — and it is this shaped, “dimpled” space that gives rise to mass and particles. This inverts the standard view of General Relativity.
Reversal of causality:
Standard Model: mass → gravity
This model: gravity (spatial curvature/topology) creates → mass
Key Consequences of the Hypothesis
Mass is emergent, not fundamental.
Particles do not “have” mass; their mass is a byproduct of how space is bent around them. The shapes of massless particles enable them to move frictionlessly through space at the speed of light.
The Higgs field shapes particles to provide friction with already-dimpled space.
Thus, gravity exists throughout space, even in the absence of mass. Curvature of space is the fundamental property.
The curvature shapes create the various particles: Quarks, Leptons, Gluons, Photons, and Bosons.
The analog would be proteins, where shape determines properties. The shapes of particles determine their properties due to their varying interactions with space.
This helps explain why gravitons are undetectable. They may not exist because gravity isn’t a force that requires particles, but a topological condition of space.
Black holes may not have a singularity or even an ‘inside.’ The entirety of a black hole can be described as a region of gravity, topologically defined by its apparent ‘surface,’ i.e., its event horizon. Nothing enters a black hole. It is a tight, topological knot.
Singularities associated with black holes may be a misapplication of the cause-and-effect direction. Black holes may be a creation of space, described by topology.
In short, since nothing enters the black hole, but is absorbed into its topological structure at the boundary, then information isn’t lost — it’s encoded on the surface (as the holographic principle suggests). This addresses the Information Paradox.
Since there is no central point of infinite curvature, we don’t need a quantum theory of gravity to describe the non-existent “singularity.”
Instead, we need topological field theory describing stable, non-trivial configurations of space.
Black Hole Evaporation?
If black hole evaporation is proved to exist, Hawking radiation could be interpreted as a slow unwinding of the knot, a gradual release of curvature-energy back into flatter space.
Speculative Topological View of Particles
Leptons (e.g., electron, muon, tau)
–Simple closed loop dimples, possibly toroidal folds in space –Differ by frequency of oscillation or depth of curvature
–Mass differences are from different vibrational or twisting modes of the same structure
Quarks
–Interlinked or partially knotted topologies
–Cannot exist alone because they are topological substructures — stable only when part of a larger, “balanced” configuration (e.g., proton)
Bosons (photon, W/Z, gluon, Higgs)
Photon: A wave-like twist in space — a periodic ripple, massless due to uniform curvature
Gluon: A localized “flux tube” — binding quarks through shared topology
W/Z: A massive bump — large localized curvature with partial symmetry
Higgs: Not a “field” so much as a pervasive resonance pattern — it aligns with other dimples and gives them stability/mass
Neutrinos
–Subtle dimples with almost no depth –Travel at near light speed because they barely disturb space
Philosophical/Physical Implications
–No separate graviton needed –Gravity is space.
–Unification with quantum mechanics
–If space is granular (like a mesh or moiré lattice), then quantum fluctuations arise from its “snapping” between shapes –This allows quantum behavior to emerge from spatial topologies, not conflict with them
Time may be a deformation mode
–Speculation: “Time is a field that emerges from changing spatial topology — curvature evolving causes the perception of flow.
Most Equations Still Work
Einstein’s field equations stay the same in form, but causality flips
Space Curvature induces Energy/Momentum,” not vice versa
Quantum equations remain valid, but now operators reflect spatial topologies rather than particle properties
Where This Leads:
What defines particle identity?
–Topological invariants (like winding number, total curvature, turning number, chirality, genus) may define charge, spin, etc.
Could this explain dark matter? or dark energy?
–Possibly: dark matter may be unseen spatial knots with no interaction except gravitationally.
–Dark energy may be the stretching or relaxing of space at cosmological scales.
–Stable particles arise from specific, self-reinforcing topological states. Others decay quickly.
Core Idea:
Space is gravity. The topology of space determines what we see as particles. Mass is a manifestation of curved space, not the cause of it.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;
MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;
……………………………………………………………………..
A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
This makes sense to me. In fact I would posit that experiencing space directly is increased consciousness because it draws ones viewpoint away from the internal chatter and problems one is stuck in and makes it a viewpoint of dimension. Its why zen monks gaze at walls…in order to experience satori which is an enlightening experience of increased self awarenesss and increased experience of space. In my 20’s I had such an experience where the space around me was virtually palpable, colors were experienced as much more vivid than normal and I could feel the solidity of objects at a distance.
LikeLike
Thanks, chdwr. There is a related experience I sometimes have. It is called “ASMR” (autonomous sensory meridian response) that is most pleasant, even for an old coot like me.
If you’re not familiar with it, you can look it up in Wikipedia, and other online sources.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, Rodger, but who besides you and some scientists gives a flying frogleap about whether the universe is made ou of space or gravity or mouse poo? Of what use is any of this to the average Joe on the street wondering if ICE is going to get them today or tomorrow? Or if the cheque they just wrote is going to bounce before their paycheue is directly deposited in their bank account?
The millions of dollars being spent on researching if a graiton does or does not exist has absolutely no effect on whether I wake up tomorrow morning or not? Your posts on Monetary Sovereignty are informative, but these other directions you are taking are useless drivel to most people.
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Understood.
For many people, astronomy, any history (art, dance, European), paleontology, and many other studies are “useless drivel.” Sometimes that “useless drivel” turns out to be not so useless.
For some people, just learning and thinking is an exhilarating experience. For others, if it doesn’t have a predictable payoff, it’s a waste of time.
In grammar school, kids would ask, “Why do we have to learn that?” And in fact, most of what you learn in school doesn’t turn out to have a life-use.
Did you also feel the same when you watched the men walking on the moon? When you see a baseball game? When you walk through an art gallery or hear music or see the reconstruction of dinosaur bones?
I am willing to bet that when you read the newspaper, nearly everything you read is “useless drivel.”
But I get where you’re coming from. MY speculations may not interest YOU. Fair enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the world in the state it is in today, with all the gratuitous killing going on, with the USA in particular throwing its own citizens to the wolves, what might interest me in time of peace just has no bearing on “life as we have to live it” right now.
No, I cannot do a damn thing to set the world to rights at thia prexent time — except to rabble-rouse — but you have a voice people listen to! So why not use it where you might do some good? Thoae who do not fight iniquity are doomed to suffer from their choice.
LikeLike
The world would improve substantially if these three facts were widely accepted:
Widespread understanding of #s 1, 2, and 3, would greatly reduce the motivations for war. That would help the populace understand that humans are a team, together on this planet, and realize the ultimate enemy is the Gap and death.
LikeLike
At this stage of thinking:
Space isn’t an empty container but the actual substance of everything – a single foundational medium from which all matter, energy, time, and even gravity emerge.
This idea flips conventional physics: instead of mass creating gravity by bending space, gravity is space, and space itself creates mass through structured geometry.
Traditionally, mass tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move. In this model:
Curved space is not a response to mass; It is the origin of mass.
Gravity is not a force acting on matter; it shapes space. Particles, forces, and time all emerge from these shapes.
The zoo of particles in the Standard Model (leptons, quarks, bosons) are not irreducible points, but topological features of space — its twists, knots, loops, and vibrations. Each particle type arises from a different stable configuration:
Mass is curvature density;
Charge is twist;
Spin is symmetry of rotation.
Gravity is the univesral substrate. No additional substrate is needed. The Standard Model holds, but its cause-and-effect is reinterpreted.
Black holes are not holes. They are tightly knotted regions of space: There us no “inside” or singularity. The event horizon contains all information. Black holes are the surface-only boundaries of a spatial knot. No information falls in; it gets encoded on the surface. This view dissolves the paradoxes of singularities and information loss.
The universe is like a chaotic lake filled with ripples, waves, and rogue surges, but of gravity, not water:
Trillions of tiny disturbances (particles),
Fewer mid-scale structures (stars, molecules),
Rare large formations (black holes).
These follow a scale-free or power-law distribution. As in a lake, where wave interference causes rare rogue waves, interactions in space geometry create rare, massive structures.
Time is not external. It emerges from changes in the geometry of space:
A dynamic topology evolves. That evolution is what we call time. What we perceive as the flow of time is just our measurement of how space itself changes form.
Dark energy may not be an added substance. Instead it reflects large-scale tension or inhomogeneity in the spatial substrate.
Measurement distortions occur when space is stretched, relaxed, or anisotropic. The apparent acceleration of expansion might be an illusion caused by variable geometric properties across vast scales.
A good theory must be disprovable. Here’s what could falsify this model:
Detection of gravitons as force particles (gravity as separate).
Discovery that black holes have internal structure (not surface-only).
Proof that particles are truly pointlike and not geometric.
Evidence that dark matter interacts outside of space geometry.
Quantum behavior that defies all geometric interpretations.
A universe that doesn’t follow power-law structure scaling.
Proof that space is passive, not active.
This model doesn’t throw away modern physics. It keeps the math, but changes the story:
Gravity is not added to space; it is space.
Particles are not objects in space; they are part of space.
Time is not separate; it emerges from space.
It answers black holes, dark matter, dark energy, entanglement, and singularities under one principle: the universe is a structured, self-organizing spatial field.
More thinking remains on dark energy, especially its relationship to time, curvature, and measurement. But the trajectory is clear: Everything is made of space. And space is made of gravity.
LikeLike
Gravity is made of…gravity?
LikeLike
Yes, the hypothesis is that gravity is the fundamental substrate of the universe. The universe is gravity, and everything else — all particles, all fields — are made out of gravity.
LikeLike
Can gravity produce love or other feelings (fieldings?) that we think we are in charge of, or are they in charge of us?
LikeLike
Chemicals produce all emotions. That’s why people use chemicals.
LikeLike
Dark energy is often described as one of the great mysteries of modern cosmology. It appears to be driving the accelerated expansion of the universe, but no one knows what it actually is. Why doesn’t it clump? Why don’t we feel its effects locally? Why does it seem to act in opposition to gravity?
These questions persist largely because of a hidden assumption: that gravity is the only large-scale curvature shaping the cosmos, and that its effects should simply add up. The more mass, the more pull, the more slowdown. But the universe isn’t slowing. It’s accelerating.
In general relativity, gravity isn’t a force. It’s the shape of space. Mass curves space, and objects move along the paths defined by that curvature—geodesics. When the curvature is concave (like a bowl), geodesics converge. When it’s convex (like a dome), they diverge.
In this picture, gravity’s “pull” is just motion along inward-bending field lines. There’s no pulling—just falling into curves. What we call attraction is concave geometry.
Now consider dark energy. It doesn’t attract. It doesn’t bind. It doesn’t even register locally. But it causes everything far apart to become farther apart faster. That’s not a push—it’s a change in global geometry. The geodesics are bending outward. Dark energy, in this sense, is not a force. It’s convex curvature on the largest scales.
Here’s a way to visualize the problem. Imagine standing in a valley halfway up a mountain. Locally, the landscape is sloped inward—you’re surrounded by concavity. That’s gravity. But when viewed from above, you’re clearly on the outward-facing slope of a mountain—a convex curve. That’s dark energy.
We measure gravity in solar systems and galaxies, where it dominates. Its concave geometry overwhelms everything else. But when we look across billions of light-years—between galaxy clusters—we begin to see the larger, convex shape: space itself is stretching.
This makes dark energy nearly impossible to isolate locally. It’s like trying to detect Earth’s curvature while standing in a ditch. The local dip masks the larger shape.
In molecular biology, protein folding determines function. A single molecule can behave in radically different ways depending on how it’s folded. Geometry creates behavior.
What if the same is true for spacetime?
Concave folds may produce behaviors we interpret as “attraction.” Convex folds may produce “repulsion.” Field lines aren’t forces—they’re guidance structures. And when space folds in different ways, it produces different relational outcomes between objects: pull, push, bind, scatter.
This kind of geometric reasoning already appears in quantum field theory. The strong nuclear force, for instance, has both attractive and repulsive geometries depending on distance. There’s nothing strange about a field shifting behavior based on shape and scale.
It’s important to distinguish visualization from explanation. A photo of a flower is not a flower. Analogies can help us think clearly—or mislead us. But if used with care, they offer deep insight.
The mistake may not be in our math, but in our mental model. We’ve been trying to interpret the universe through the lens of forces—things that push and pull. But space doesn’t push or pull. It guides. And that guidance depends on how it’s shaped.
Gravity is not inherently attractive; it’s a concave shaping of space that brings paths together. Dark energy may be a convex shaping, spreading paths apart over vast scales.
Locally, gravity dominates. Universally, dark energy emerges. We can’t detect dark energy near us because we’re inside a gravitational valley—yet we’re also halfway up a cosmic mountain.
Shape is function. Like proteins, spacetime may express different “forces” through different geometric configurations.
So perhaps the real mystery is not dark energy at all. Perhaps the mystery is why we ever expected the universe to behave like a sum of forces—rather than a living landscape of evolving, folded geometry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re not the first to conceive of space as geometry. In fact, there was a whole theory and a book etc. about that, called The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon, an electrical engineer. There’s a review of it here: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php
Basically, expansion theory posits that everything in the universe, planets, you, me, atomic particles…is always expanding. The math is in the article and more in the book, and I haven’t checked, though New Scientist did in their review (2010), referenced in the article. McCutheon’s theory is one of 7 that New Scientist included as a potential theory of everything, finally reconciling General Theory with Quantum Theory.
Expansion theory then, postulates that gravity is just acceleration, like in Einstein’s elevator model: the force of the Earth pushing up upon us (while we too, are expanding). Sounds preposterous, but then, if every measure is also expanding including space itself, how would you know?
LikeLike
Thanks, Scott. If ever I am the first to think of something, I immediately will know it’s wrong. Too many brilliant thinkers have preceded me.
You’re right that if the ruler expands at the same rate as the distance, we wouldn’t know it. That said, we know space is expanding because some measuring tools don’t expand. The redshift of stars is one.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Perhaps, someone will read all this, and it will spur some new thinking. It can’t be accepted as is, because there is scant math to substantiate it. It’s just concept thinking
Our thoughts, choices, preferences, and beliefs are outcomes of physics: neural architecture, developmental biology, genetics, prior stimuli. There’s no metaphysical “chooser” outside the system to interrupt or redirect the causal flow.
Everything we do or think arises from:
–The structure of our brains (which gravity and evolution shaped),
–The inputs we receive (which we don’t choose),
–And the internal processing of those inputs (which follows physical law).
Teenagers famously have bad ideas and make bad decisions. It’s not just for lack of experience. The teenage brain has not developed. It believes in free will, even as it physically changes dramatically, as do its beliefs and actions. It can’t do otherwise.
If There’s No Free Will, What’s the Point of Trying? This is the familiar existential hangover of determinism. But in a strict no-free-will framework, “trying” is not a decision—it’s a behavior that arises from antecedent causes. I try because I must try. The reason I write, question, wonder, and persist is not because I choose to—it’s because I have no choice.
It’s like the well-known case of the infected ant. A parasitic fungus hijacks its brain, causing it to crawl up a blade of grass and lock its jaws at the top—so it can be eaten. But the ant doesn’t know it’s infected. It isn’t resisting. It simply wants to climb. The compulsion feels like desire.
Some days I’m lazy and don’t write. The decision is the result of molecules in my brain affecting synapses, and somewhere along the line, those synapses decide not to write. There is no underlying “I” making a decision that does not involve my brain.
Space is gravity. Gravity shapes everything. Of the things it shapes are brains and bodies, thus shaping thoughts and beliefs.
The gravity-creates-all idea ties in with the no-free will idea. There’s a logical consistency. Gravity creates everything. There is no free will. Consciousness is the degree of response to stimuli.
Particles exist where space takes on topological shapes (knots, folds). Matter and energy do not cause gravity. They are outcomes of its geometry. Neurons, atoms, time, and even quantum behavior may be emergent properties of space shaped by gravity.
Everything is physical in some way. Also, everything is related to time and motion. So we have three building blocks: TIME, MOTION and something that physically exists, meaning SHAPE, all affected by gravity
Even particle behavior may emerge from topological features. Shape is defined and constrained by gravitational geometry.
It forces us to reinterpret electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force as geometric—topological features or curvatures embedded within a deeper gravitational substrate.
Nature prefers folded shapes for intricate complexity. The brain is one example. Proteins are another. That is a clue.
Proteins fold into precise 3D shapes, and those shapes determine their function. The “rules” that shape proteins are a blend of physics, chemistry, and information encoded in genes.
Protein Folding is a corollary to Gravity Shaping
The Hidden Parallel: Energy Minimization. Proteins fold to minimize free energy. vs, Particles follow paths of least gravitational potential energy. The universal shaping logic: “The shape that emerges is the one requiring the least energyto sustain.”
Just as protein folding follows physical/chemical rules, gravity shapes spacetime through geometry.
Mass, force, even time itself—are shaped states of curved space,
Consciousness is response in a universe where gravity is omnipresent.
Just like a protein catalyzes a reaction because of its fold, a brain responds to experience because of its structure. And just like a protein can’t choose a different shape, your cells can’t choose their own responses to stimuli.
You don’t decide to want what you want. You want it because of the shapes in you. You are composed of the shapes gravity folded when it folded this portion of spacetime into neurons and synapses and history.
LikeLike
We have limited minds. We can’t comprehend totality because it’s beyond our limits, so we can’t fully understand gravity. We can work with it, but we can’t know its origin. It simply “is.” It works well as a Designer that we have no control over. But we do have local control, such as whether to drop bombs on people or walk into a lion’s cage.
Comprehensively, it’s gravity. Locally, I call it common sense, unless politics is involved, then it’s non sense.
LikeLike
If not believing in Free Will discourages us from being productive, looking after ourselves and our future, then – in your model – delusions of having Free Will are evolutionarily encouraged. For that matter, delusions of belief in God – or Gods; no two people agree exactly on what God/Gods is/are – are evolutionarily selected for. Not because they are objectively true, but because “a little delusion can get you through your day.”
Not a very appealing conclusion for most people, I believe…conditioned by billions of years of evolution, chemicals, gravity and other physical forces. Gee, it’s hard enough dealing with the political delusions currently preeminent, as well as the monetary delusions that are your usual fare on this blog. I think I will retain at least the delusion of “Free Will” just to get me through my day.
LikeLike
Good idea, Scott.
LikeLike